This blog is written by a journalist based in Mumbai who writes about cities, the environment, developmental issues, the media, women and many other subjects.The title 'ulti khopdi' is a Hindi phrase referring to someone who likes to look at things from the other side.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Maneka Gandhi is right

R.K. Pachauri continues to head TERI while his successor is yet to take over. Photo: Prashant Nakwe

Prime Minister Narendra Modi runs a tight ship. Hardly any minister in
his cabinet speaks out of turn. Except one. Union Minister for Women and
Child Welfare Maneka Gandhi appears to have no hesitation in voicing
her unhappiness with some of the decisions of her government.

So while she is already on record asking that marital rape be
criminalised even though her government thinks otherwise, in May this
year she objected to the cutback in central funds allocated to
programmes under her ministry. She was particularly upset that the
allocation for the Integrated Child Development Services, a programme
that has been crucial to improving nutritional levels of the most
vulnerable children and women, has been cut by almost half. Furthermore,
even the National Nutrition Mission launched in December 2014 by her
government has been given short shrift. Far from the Rs.28,000 crores
over five years that it was expecting, it has been allocated only Rs.100
crores so far.

In the recently released Human Development Report of the United Nations
Development Programme, India’s maternal mortality figure of 190 (number
of women who die for every 100,000 live births) is substantially higher
than even war-torn Syria (49) and Iraq (67). Its child mortality figures
are equally depressing as compared to many other countries.

Her latest missive to her own government is equally significant. In a
letter to Union Finance and Corporate Affairs minister Arun Jaitley,
Gandhi has asked him to make it mandatory for companies to reveal
whether they have set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as
required under the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act 2013. This is a
reasonable request. Yet, Jaitley has dismissed it saying that such an
additional demand on companies is “undesirable”.

How does the question of whether it is “desirable” or not enter the
picture? The law has mandated that all companies and organisations must
have an ICC. It also requires companies to inform employees about
provisions of the law and train members of the ICC on the law and what
constitutes an offence.

The non-compliance levels of Indian companies underline why Ms. Gandhi’s
request is not unreasonable. According to a report titled “Fostering
Safe Workplaces” by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industry and Ernst and Young, one in every three Indian companies, or 31
per cent, has not set up ICCs. Of those who have, 40 per cent have not
begun training the members in the provisions of the law, 35 per cent are
unaware of the penal consequences of not complying with the law and 44
per cent have not circulated information about the law to their
employees. FICCI has just signed a Memorandum of Understanding with UN
Women to advance “gender equality and women’s empowerment”. A good start
would be to get its members to comply with provisions of the sexual
harassment law.

According to the National Commission on Women, the complaints of sexual
harassment at the workplace have doubled from 249 in 2013 to 526 in
2014. These represent a sliver of the reality. For every one case
reported, there are likely to be dozens that remain hidden, with the
women too afraid to raise their voices for fear of losing their jobs or
being further victimised.

We know from the recent sexual harassment case at The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI) how difficult it is for a woman to pursue a
case against a powerful individual. When the TERI employee first
complained against the head of the institute, Dr. R.K. Pachauri, TERI
did not even have an ICC. Once constituted, the ICC upheld the woman’s
complaint. Dr. Pachauri was asked to go on leave and the board (after
some pressure from the media, one might add) appointed his successor.
Yet, Dr. Pachauri continues to head TERI while his successor is yet to
take over. Meanwhile, the affected woman has resigned. In her
resignation letter, she states: “TERI failed to uphold my interests as
an employee, let alone protecting them. The organisation has instead
protected R.K. Pachauri and provided him full immunity, despite being
held guilty of sexual harassment by your own inquiry committee.” This
case is as clear an illustration as any of the skewed power equations in
sexual harassment cases.

Compliance with the law is obviously only the first step. The minimum
requirement is an ICC. Yet, as is clear from the TERI case, it is not
enough. Organisations must support those women who find the courage to
speak up. Instead, in their desire to avoid any slur on their
reputations, many organisations end up protecting the harasser and
literally hounding the complainant to leave. So, Maneka Gandhi is right.
Insisting that registered companies (and other organisations) comply
with this minimum requirement is not asking for too much.

No comments:

My profile

Journalist, columnist, writer based in Mumbai. Author of "Rediscovering Dharavi: Stories from Asia's largest slum" (Penguin, 2000). Worked with The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express and Himmat Weekly.
Other books include "Whose News? The Media and Women's Issues" edited with Ammu Joseph (published by Sage 1994/2006), "Terror Counter-Terror: Women Speak Out" edited with Ammu Joesph (published by Kali for Women, 2003) and "Missing: Half the Story, Journalism as if Gender Matters" (published by Zubaan, 2010).
Regular columns in The Hindu, Sunday Magazine and on The Hoot (www.thehoot.org).